Keltec sub gen 2 vs ruger pc9 tactical

Freegun said:
Ok thanks everyone,

I've decided to try the sub2k.......

But i may pick the ruger sometime in the future though..
Click to expand...

Congrats on getting in the PCC game!

In the future, you might want to look at the Ruger in the Magpul backpaker stock.
It fills a totally different need.

I have a range PCC and a pack out PCC.
 
Highly recommend MCARBO Sub200 gen 2 upgrades for internal & external.
Functionality, reliability, sturdiness, accuracy, and everything gets better, while keeping impressively light weight and ultra fast deployment.
Personal preference but also flat trigger option is added improvement with a crisp trigger pull weight at 4 lbs after an internal upgrade.

It is fun and reliable. Also the light weight is easy on back shoulder neck after shooting hundreds of round repeatedly.
 
I have both a PC9/PC Carbine and a Sub2000. I would take the Ruger in a heartbeat. The Sub2K folds, yes, but over time, that niche feature becomes less important, at least for me. Taking Glock mags in the grip is great, but again over time, not as big of a deal. My Sub2000 has more felt recoil (probably due to light weight), I can't put an optic on it unless I get an offset mount, and the built in sites are awful. Charging handle is super stiff and not a fan of the location.

Ruger is heavier but just made better in my opinion. It's a bit involved to completely take apart, and a number of parts should be replaced asap with Mcarbo kits (ie. shock buffer and clip, extractor, bolt retaining screws, etc.). Accuracy wise, out of the box I would take the Ruger. Operation, wise, I enjoy shooting the Ruger more. It won't win any beauty contests, but the gun is as reliable as they come.
 
Have been enjoying fully upgraded MCARBO M-series Sub2000 without noticing any of the issues been discussed for
Factory stock.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between both M-series ruger pcc and M-series sub2k
 
Got em both. Love em both. Jammed them both full of the aftermarket doodads, and it's worth every penny.
The S2K is best for deep bush carry, and the Ruger is the Designated Marksman of 9 mils.
147 HP +P for both, no probs.
 
hoytcanon said:
I wish people would stop talking about the PC9 and PC Carbine like they are the same gun.
Click to expand...

The PC9 was close to irrelevant in its heyday let alone now so I think most of is that know the difference just don't bother pointing it out. Nobody gives a crap about the PC-9 anymore and it's obvious when it actually is being discussed.
 
B said:
The PC9 was close to irrelevant in its heyday let alone now so I think most of is that know the difference just don't bother pointing it out. Nobody gives a crap about the PC-9 anymore and it's obvious when it actually is being discussed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, words don't matter...
 
hoytcanon said:
Yeah, words don't matter...
Click to expand...

Words do matter, that's why the "far left" is redefining everything.

I guess in a world of "triggers".... all we can do is control what triggers us.

Maybe PCC vs PC is your hill to die on, but I doubt it. Your issue sounds more like a clipazine, Carbine/Carbeen type thing and while I get it.... I get it and if I get it, well that's all that matters to me.

Your mileage may very and that's why I support the truckers!

:)
 
I have a sub2000, I'd say the ruger. I do love the 2000 but I bought it for a strictly fun factor ridiculous gun. If had any plans to "use" it for some actual purpose I think the ruger would be much better.
 
I just went with the JR Carbine with stainless barrel. I really tried to like the Ruger PC9 but from day one I found it ugly and the Glock mag looked weird sticking out the giant magwell. I'll admit that the latest tactical incarnation with the collapsing stock and m-lok foregrip appealed to me BUT the more I stared at it the more it reminded me of a gryphon or sphinx. A bastardized mish mash of different parts and angles and no one thing really complimenting the other. For lack of a better word the whole gun looks like an 'afterthought'. Just my 2 cents, to each their own.
 
The sub2000 is an awful gun to shoot. There’s nothing fun about it, its one of the least comfortable guns to fire.
It folds, I guess that’s cool. The folding feature is the only redeeming quality.
I had the receiver separate enough that the hammer popped off its home. It jammed the poor thing solid.

If I bought another PCC I’d get something designed for use.
 
coleman1495 said:
The sub2000 is an awful gun to shoot. There’s nothing fun about it, its one of the least comfortable guns to fire.
It folds, I guess that’s cool. The folding feature is the only redeeming quality.
I had the receiver separate enough that the hammer popped off its home. It jammed the poor thing solid.

If I bought another PCC I’d get something designed for use.
Click to expand...

I had one and sold it. I couldn't even get a shooting position. I guess it would be fine if you put a high rise scope mount and red dot on it, but then what's the point of folding, you would need a 45 degree mount but even then it is awkward. Furthermore, the charging handle is a joke, my wife couldn't charge that thing.

Ever wonder why there are so many aftermarket accessories available? - because it sucks.
 
You can make the Sub200 rear sight slightly more useful by taking a drill to the opening and widen it a bit. Be careful not to remove the aperture completely. It worked when I had the gun. If the OP likes his purchase all is good. The FX9 and the Ruger PCC are better options in my opinion but then again my wife tells me I have to many guns and is going to be over the moon, in a bad way, when she sees the FX 9 at the door. Phoning Wolverine Monday. Thanks Troy!

Take Care

Bob
ps If you like guns that come apart find yourself a Marlin Papoose in .22LR, Now there is a sweetheart design. More fun then a lot of things I have done in my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom